Reality and Other Falsehoods

[Murmayder]

Many of you may know about the thought experiment known as "The Brain in a Vat", which entails that you essentially wouldn't know if you were actually a full human being or just a brain in a vat being controlled and shown a "reality" by a computer.

I have two questions for y'all.


1. Would you volunteer for go into a tube full of life sustaining goo, with electrodes all over your body, and have a computer show you a false reality for the rest of your life, the reality you would be shown would make your life better than what your life without it could have possibly turned out like. You would not remember your old life or that you were in a tube OR would you rather go on living this life, knowing that you, at least for the most part, are in control and that this reality is "real"?

2. Like in the movie Inception, if you felt that you had very strong reasons to believe that your whole reality was false and that the only way to awaken yourself in the TRUE reality was to kill yourself, do you think you could?

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Murmayder 1. Would you volunteer for go into a tube full of life sustaining goo, with electrodes all over your body, and have a computer show you a false reality for the rest of your life, the reality you would be shown would make your life better than what your life without it could have possibly turned out like. You would not remember your old life or that you were in a tube OR would you rather go on living this life, knowing that you, at least for the most part, are in control and that this reality is "real"?

No. Simply per virtue that my reality is exclusive to myself. That does not sound fulfilling or happy in the least.

2. Like in the movie Inception, if you felt that you had very strong reasons to believe that your whole reality was false and that the only way to awaken yourself in the TRUE reality was to kill yourself, do you think you could?

If I had to, sure.

And your thread title makes it seem like reality is false. Kind of had me excited for an actual philosophical subject here.

[Dalliance]

Originally Posted by RayA75 And your thread title makes it seem like reality is false. Kind of had me excited for an actual philosophical subject here.

Solipsism discussions never turn out well.

Originally Posted by Murmayder 1. Would you volunteer for go into a tube full of life sustaining goo, with electrodes all over your body, and have a computer show you a false reality for the rest of your life, the reality you would be shown would make your life better than what your life without it could have possibly turned out like. You would not remember your old life or that you were in a tube OR would you rather go on living this life, knowing that you, at least for the most part, are in control and that this reality is "real"?

Sure. What difference is there between an indistinguishable falsehood and real life?

Originally Posted by Murmayder 2. Like in the movie Inception, if you felt that you had very strong reasons to believe that your whole reality was false and that the only way to awaken yourself in the TRUE reality was to kill yourself, do you think you could?

If I felt strongly enough, yes.

[shooter190]

QUESTION 1:) I'd rather continue living in this life, where at least I know that I am in control. So no tube for me.

QUESTION 2:) I don't know. I need to at least know what my reasons are, not just the fact that they are "strong." But I will say that I am slightly easy to influence (Not dumb or less smarter than others, but easy to influence).

[Murmayder]

Originally Posted by RayA75 No. Simply per virtue that my reality is exclusive to myself. That does not sound fulfilling or happy in the least.

It doesn't matter what it sounds like right now, the premise is that you would be happier. What if I said you'd be in absolute ecstasy and you'd never get used to it, you would always know and feel happy.
This reality is still exclusive to yourself, as far as you are aware.

Originally Posted by RayA75 And your thread title makes it seem like reality is false. Kind of had me excited for an actual philosophical subject here.

You can't argue that it's not ;)

Originally Posted by Dalliance Solipsism discussions never turn out well.

"well" can be replaced with "different". There is no way to figure it out, truly.

Originally Posted by Dalliance Sure. What difference is there between an indistinguishable falsehood and real life?

None at all ;)

Originally Posted by shooter190 QUESTION 1 I'd rather continue living in this life, where at least I know that I am in control. So no tube for me.

How do you know you're in control, if the situation was true, you might already be in a tube ;)

[Ray]

It doesn't matter what it sounds like right now, the premise is that you would be happier. What if I said you'd be in absolute ecstasy and you'd never get used to it, you would always know and feel happy.

The way you phrased the question makes it sound like you know it is going to be exclusive to yourself beforehand. Because of that, I say no.

You can't argue that it's not ;)

What? Of course you can.

But it's sort of like arguing that there is no God. You have to work against arguments, instead of formulating arguments yourself.

[Hyde]

Originally Posted by RayA75 The way you phrased the question makes it sound like you know it is going to be exclusive to yourself beforehand. Because of that, I say no. What? Of course you can. But it's sort of like arguing that there is no God. You have to work against arguments, instead of formulating arguments yourself.

Working against arguments which basis lies entirely in imagination and faith is pretty easy. Its a stupid argument, however, as it is impossible to convince someone to drop their faith/beliefs and switch over to your system of beliefs.

For example, my belief in the almighty omniscient superbeing athiesmo will never waver.

Moving on.

Reality, by definition, is perception. The world or the state of things as they actually exist. Existence is impossible to disprove, but easy enough to prove. I'll use tulpas as my example. To their creator, they are real. To an outside observer, the person may appear to be a schizophrenic who has conversations with the air.

This is a very, very abstract topic. I don't have the time to type all my thoughts on this topic out, but, i'll leave you with a pretty decent cranial-masturbatory device.

Is reality objective?

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Hyde Working against arguments which basis lies entirely in imagination and faith is pretty easy. Its a stupid argument, however, as it is impossible to convince someone to drop their faith/beliefs and switch over to your system of beliefs. For example, my belief in the almighty omniscient superbeing athiesmo will never waver.

Too bad theology and ontology aren't based solely on faith and imagination. If it were, there would be no such thing as theology or metaphysical philosophy. There are good arguments for God's existence. There are also bad arguments for God's existence. On the same hand, there are good arguments that counter arguments for God's existence. You can't take a 500 foot look down at a subject and say it's stupid.

Moving on. Reality, by definition, is perception. The world or the state of things as they actually exist. Existence is impossible to disprove, but easy enough to prove. I'll use tulpas as my example. To their creator, they are real. To an outside observer, the person may appear to be a schizophrenic who has conversations with the air.

By definition, reality is not perception. Perception is how we come to perceive reality. We shall define reality as the body of what exists. It is whatever is in a state of being. When people talk about reality, many times they discredit ideas, imaginations, and by extension, our perception of the real world. That is an error due to the lack of definition of the term "real." I'll try and clear it up.
Medieval philosophers distinguished two different modes of existence, "entia reale" and "entia rationis."

Entia reale is the material (+ immaterial but I don't want to get into that) that exists whether or not we think of or perceive them. An example would be a house. If you look at a house you can see that it exists, but while you don't look at a house, you know it still exists.

Entia rationis is what exists in the realm of ideas. We give existence to ideas by thinking about them. An example of ideas would be dragons. Dragons are fictions of the imagination. They never existed materially, but they live on in our imaginations and ideas of them.

This is not to be confused with objective and subjective existences. Hypothetically, we know the house exists, and we know dragons exist in our minds. These are objective these ideas we can share.

Subjective existences exist for you and for you alone. If you imagine a dragon, that imagination in itself is subjective. Only you have experienced it, so it exists for you alone. Sure, you can talk to others about it, but they do not share YOUR experience of it.

This is a very, very abstract topic. I don't have the time to type all my thoughts on this topic out, but, i'll leave you with a pretty decent cranial-masturbatory device. Is reality objective?

The wording of this question is kind of stuck in "that idea vs idea" part of my head. As I talked about above, there are objective parts to reality, and there are subjective parts. There are conceptual parts to reality, and there are perceptual parts.

I'll try and pose a better question.

Is the reality that you and I seem to share as objective Entia Reale and entia rationis actually subjective and not independent of your own existence? If or if not, why?

There are many arguments you can use, such as the dream argument or methodological skepticism, but I am a realist. I believe that what is entia reale and rationis is independent of our own existences.

[Murmayder]

Originally Posted by RayA75 The way you phrased the question makes it sound like you know it is going to be exclusive to yourself beforehand. Because of that, I say no.

Yes, you would know, beforehand, that you are the only real person.

Originally Posted by RayA75 What? Of course you can. But it's sort of like arguing that there is no God. You have to work against arguments, instead of formulating arguments yourself.

You can't argue that this reality is the only one or that it is the truest one. Mainly because, even if you had a super convincing argument, I'm still left with Cartesian Doubt which places you as merely a projection of my subconscious or a character in a program that controls my mind etc.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Murmayder Yes, you would know, beforehand, that you are the only real person.

As Descartes said, you cannot doubt that you can and do think.

You can't argue that this reality is the only one or that it is the truest one. Mainly because, even if you had a super convincing argument, I'm still left with Cartesian Doubt which places you as merely a projection of my subconscious or a character in a program that controls my mind etc.

Methodological skepticism leaves no room for anything. We believe things proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and we hold things as truths when it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. When you can only believe things proven to be unable to be doubted, you are left with the following knowledge:

There can be no round squares (or self-evident statements as such)
I know I am thinking (as mentioned above)

You cannot doubt those things at all ,but that should not be the only knowledge one should have. When you doubt the existence of an independent reality like Descartes did, you do the following:

My perception can be tricked, so I anything I perceive has a chance of being fake.
I perceive reality.
Reality has a chance of being fake.

That is the seed of doubt planted by Descartes about reality, and what he used to say that reality can possibly be fake, or at least dependent on myself. This is what idealist philosophers grow into full plants of rejection of an independent reality.

Now, why do I not trust this argument?

Descartes doubted anything he could, how miniscule the chances that he was wrong about it. This is not a healthy way to think as Descartes found out. Do we really have reason to believe that our perceptions are wrong at all times in all places simply because of the fact that we can hallucinate or dream?
No.

This is why methodological skepticism isn't something adhered to by many philosophers, but a neat idea of entertain. It is not a healthy way to assert philosophical knowledge. As for denying arguments themselves, "Cartesian doubt" cannot over ride logic lest it chip away at the ground upon ehich it stands.